The Recession Claims Another....‏

I am fed up of hearing the ‘news’ that the recession has claimed another large chain store. Chains like Woolworths and Adams must surely have had difficulties long before the onset of the recent recession. They have been in business for almost a hundred years and came through the 1930’s depression. I accept it may have been the last straw, but not the sole cause.
The media should be more responsible and stop scare-mongering. And, just for once report accurately.

Tough on Crime, Soft on the ‘Causers’ of Crime.

I’ve just read the Government is to get tough on caught those carrying a knife. As I continued the story, I thought ‘About time’. What would they be doing? Five years for carrying a bladed weapon? Re-introduce hard labour for violent crime? Maybe consider corporal punishment? No. 18 month’s community service and a curfew.

That’ll scare the pants off anybody prepared to stick 8 inches of cold steel into someone.

Eye For An Eye

So offenders have been abused and threatened wearing high visibility vests. Good. What about the victims they abused and threatened? If it makes just one offender less likely to reoffend, it should be encouraged. Let the system continue, and look at the figures in a couple of years.

But I suppose the liberal brigade will get their way and the poor darlings won't be made to wear them.

 

Royal Prerogative

Not satisfied with shooting at mutilated birds that have been caged and frightened by beaters so much they fly against instinct into the gunfire, the Prince beats a dog that makes a mess of his 'catch'.

If this was me or you, we would almost certainly be arrested and interviewed. As it is, the RSPCA (ROYAL Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) is not investigating, but conducting a 'review' of what happened.

Disgusting. The Royals and their ilk would have little kids back up chimneys if they thought they'd get away with it.

 

Damian Green

What's the problem over the arrest of Damian Green? Either he committed a crime or there was evidence to suggest a crime had or may be committed. Or he hadn't and there was not sufficient evidence, in which case the police and not the New Labour (who I abhor) government have a case to answer.

The truth about inflation.

The current wave of price cuts in high street stores supports my position that high prices and inflation are not caused by reasonable wage claims but by greedy businessmen charging excessive prices to maintain obscene profits just because 'they can afford it'.

Never mind wage restraint, the government should introduce price constraint. Or are obscene profits 'good business' while high wages are greed? We are, after all selling our labour.

Inflation Solved

Greedy businessmen, not pay rises fuel inflation. (Or why don't the big businesses rises and bonuses fuel inflation?) The greedy 'they're going to need this, charge what they can afford, not what it's worth', profit for profits sake so-called entrepreneurs are the ones to blame and should be reigned in through similar draconian legislation the poor were subjected to throughout 17 years of Tory and 11 years of New 'Labour' misrule.

Divide and Conquer

The politicians, lawyers, employers, financiers, speculators and sundry other interested parties must be rubbing their hands with glee. Talking to colleagues, friends and neighbours it seems they're on the road to victory again. Instead of uniting against the financial 'elite' we're spending our time arguing with ourselves, scoring cheap points about who is better off while they continue their policy of divide and conquer.

Tories Tax Ideas- Nothing New.

Re the Tories tax ideas. Once again they are saying 'benefits to businessmen will trickle down to the workforce'.

Secondly I can see this becoming another tax loophole. Take on one long term unemployed, get the tax cut then sack him/her. Do the same at the start of each tax year. Businessman benefits, unemployed figures stay the same and income tax goes up to pay for it.

Iraq or Afghanistan? Does it Matter?

While I was pleased to hear Barack Obama had won the US election, believing it might be a new beginning and usher in world peace, I have now revised my opinion. The day I discovered his opinion that when troops were moved out of Iraq, they should go to Afghanistan. Nothing changes, really.

Economy in a Recession? But what about X-Factor?

Never mind the economy, unemployment, lack of housing. Parliament is busy discussing the Brand/Ross fiasco and worrying about X-factor contestants being voted off. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7720144.stm)

Yep. We have to get our priorities right!

Tax Cuts

So Gordon Brown wants tax cuts for ordinary working people but they will probably be paid for by more public borrowing. Here's a revolutionary idea for you, Messrs Brown and Darling. Pay for it by taxing the super rich, individuals and companies and obscene profits of the energy and petrochemical industry.

By the way, how does that help the poorest who don't pay tax?

Fuel Poverty

Friend's of the Earth and Help the Aged have gone to the high court to try to force Government action on fuel poverty.

Government lawyers argued there had 'been no breach of legal responsibility'.

And there was me thinking governing a supposedly democratic, free society had a moral aspect. You live and learn.

Dumb Policy Department

Where does this government get its ideas from? Does it have a 'dumb policy department' hidden away? They now want to teach sex education in primary schools. Apart from allowing children to be children for a few years at least, can't they see that when sex education was made compulsory for 11 year olds we saw an explosion in teenage pregnancy to the point it is now the norm?

Cloud Computing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_computing


“The concept, is that vast computing resources will reside somewhere out there in the ether (rather than in your computer room) and we'll connect to them and use them as needed.”

Personally I am of the opinion that this is just another way to get more money from us. Cost of computers is constantly falling, software vendors are extending special offers to buy or upgrade their software. A niche has been seen, a possible multi billion pound (or dollar, if you prefer) niche. No matter what, if ‘cloud computing’ becomes mainstream, that is where the development money will go and licensed software will become obsolete and probably unusable eventually.

Regardless of the reasons vendors and or developers take this tack it takes away our choice. I just had a look at google docs for the first time and I can see me using it sometimes, when convenient and when the work is not critical. I would also point out that google docs have an offline option, which appears to allow google docs to be used offline. Presumably that means they are synchronised (I haven’t tried it yet) and if google or your internet connection goes down, you can still access and work on your docs.

I think in all probability it will be many years before ‘cloud computing’ becomes commonplace. There will probably be several years of licence based applications running alongside ‘cloud computing’ before we see the demise of licensing. But if ‘cloud computing’ becomes popular, then we certainly will see it pushed by the vendors and once there are few alternatives we may well see the end of cheap, maybe even home computing.

Another possible issue is who will supply these applications in the ‘cloud’? Almost certainly, apart from the current software vendors ISP’s will offer ‘cloud computing’ as part of its package. This could result in difficulty leaving an ISP (we all know how difficult it has and still can be to get a MAC number from your ISP) if they withhold your documents or make it difficult to access them. There are many ways such a system could be used to make document retrieval difficult.

Then there is the government. Living in the UK and seeing some of the draconian laws being introduced in the name of security, how long before they (or some future government with few or no scruples- perhaps a Hitler II -) would demand access to everybody’s documents- in the name of ‘security’, of course?

In 1943, IBM's Chairman, Thomas J. Watson, famously said that "the World will only maybe need five computers!" we repeat this and have a little giggle at his lack of foresight. He envisaged these five supercomputers serving the billions of terminals we would have in our homes. It seems his comment, however ridiculed it may be today, may not have been so far from the truth!

Union, are we?

Quoted from Teletext:

“A trade union leader has urged Labour MPs to consider mounting a leadership challenge to Gordon Brown after the Glasgow East by-election "disaster".

GMB general secretary Paul Kenny said: "There's no point dressing it up. It was an unmitigated disaster.

"The MPs have got to make a strong decision as to whether they want to go into an election with Gordon Brown or have a contest," he said.”

Well let me tell you this about the General and Municipal Boilermakers Union. I was a member of this union for most of the 1980’s. I have always, since my first working day in 1974 been a Trades Unionist. I was in the Amalgamate Union of Engineering Workers until being made redundant in 1980. (I also held down the same job for the same company.) I then joined the GMB after moving and taking another position. I tore up my union card because of their attitude. I didn’t stop being a trade’s unionist. I just didn’t agree with their idea of what a trades union is.

Allow me to elucidate. I had a disagreement with the shop stupid (sorry, I meant shop steward). We discussed the role of a shop steward and the rights of union members. His contention was that if a man (and he meant a man, not a man or woman) had a dispute with his employer or the employers representative then he should argue his case alone and only call in a union representative if the dispute could not be resolved.

My contention was thus:

Any union member has a right to representation by a union official at any stage of a dispute. The official should take the complaint of a union member to the company irrespective of any private discussion. If a union member feels unable or unwilling to argue the case personally, a union official should argue his or her case for them. My grounds for this are that we are in a union and should have representation at any stage of a dispute, and the dispute should be argued by an official even if the case had not been taken up by a member on his own behalf. My reasons for this were and are that firstly we are not all capable of vocalising our disagreement. Secondly, any case argued is for the whole of the union in the first instance, and for the rights of every worker irrespective of their union membership. In essence, the union is what it says it is; a union and what is done to one of us done to us all. Also, the union representative is a witness, so that discussions cannot easily be disputed. That is the strength of a union.

He disagreed and said if you can’t go in and do it for yourself, why should I do it for you? I think I have already covered that.

We didn’t reach an agreement on this issue so I took the case to the branch office. To my dismay, they agreed with him. I asked to speak to an official, a paid representative and was told nobody was available. That was when I tore up my union card. Right there, in the office.

I am still a committed trades unionist. Unfortunately, I have not worked for several years. (Wonder why?)

That is the calibre of the General and Municipal Boilermakers Union. That is why I take the introductory quote with a pinch of salt. You can’t trust or rely on the GMB.

Long Live the Revolution!

There are reports that Gordon Brown is now the "helpless prisoner" of the trade unions. Shadow minister Chris Grayling declared Mr Brown is "vying for the title of Britain's weakest ever prime minister".

After ten+ years of Tory-New Labour rule, I do hope you are right. I do hope, not a ‘prisoner’ of the Trade Unions (something akin to the conglomerate companies that own most of Britain) but a socialist who will see the benefit to the working man of having a strong negotiating position. A man who will have the vision to see that weak trade unions are counter-productive. A man who will see that a working man who feels impotent is less productive than a man who feels able to negotiate and improve his lot.

Alternatively, we can continue the current trend to make us subservient, bereft of any feelings of loyalty, worth or importance. In that case I suggest you read your history books. Watt Tyler, the English Civil War, the French Revolution. The American war of independence and the October Uprising that gave the world the first truly socialist state.

I rest my case

Labour or labour?

There is currently some debate as to whether Gordon Brown should stay or go.

That, as far as I am concerned is not the issue. The issue is whether we actually have a Labour Party to argue about. I say not. Gordon Brown, Jack Straw or the pathetic David Miliband are all turncoats. Give me a Dennis Skinner, Tony Benn or dare I say Michael Foot any day. You may not like their politics. You may not like their appearance. But they were true to the cause and trustworthy. Politicians in the true sense of the word. In the job because they believed in it. Not career politicians. They didn’t abandon the working man to Thatcher’s idealism.

Keep It In The Family

In 1996/7 John Prescott’s support for Clause IV of the labour party manifesto was seemingly silenced with the offer of the deputy leadership.

Gordon brown was kept happy with the prospect of being PM

Now home Secretary Jacqui Smith has offered a Job to police representative Jan Berry who called for her resignation over a pay dispute.

Can anybody remember a more sleazy, manipulative administration?

A Long Eaton mother jailed before being cleared of killing her son, aged four months, has lost her compensation bid.

Lorraine Allen, 39. was jailed in 2000 but it was quashed after an expert cast doubt on how the injuries were caused.

Her compensation bid was refused by the Appeal Court on the basis it could only be paid where a newly discovered fact established a miscarriage of justice

It seems to me that having a conviction quashed without new evidence (facts) should be more worthy of attracting compensation.

It's time the rules on introducing new evidence and compensation were given a complete overall. And they should start by making sure no convicted criminal receives compensation for any reason connected with his crime, incarceration or other form of punishment.

Jacqui Smith intends to confront violent criminals (people who carry knives) with victims of stabbings.

She rejected demands that anybody caught carrying a knife should go to prison.

She said: "We know that tough community sentences including community payback, supervision and electronically monitored curfews are more likely to stop them carrying knives in future."

These 'tough' community punishments haven't driven the thugs off the streets. It's driven them to carry and use knives because they don't fear the consequences.

Politicians will introduce real penalties when knife-wielding thugs start hanging around Eton and Harrow, threatening and stabbing their children and the children of the people who fund them.

MP's Expenses

I just watched Margaret Beckett on Newsnight. When asked about the £600 she had claimed for garden plants and a new pergola on her expenses, she refused to discuss the matter, only saying that the rules were followed. (It sounded a little like a child caught doing wrong and denying any wrong doing regardless of the circumstances or evidence.) While Foreign Secretary, she had access to a taxpayer-funded apartment in London, but like other ministers with similar privileges, she registered that as her primary residence. Sorry, Ms Beckett, but you were a member of the labour party and the government in the 1970’s. You and the party at that time purported to be socialist. There were many honourable socialists in that government. But for you to be at the trough with the rest of the rest of the pigs just because it didn’t break the rules betrays the foundation, the principles and the aims if the labour and socialist movement. If I were you, I’d hang my head in shame. I wait for the day that the labour party returns to its roots and once again becomes the party of the people, the disenfranchised and the ordinary working man and woman. I will be interested to see whether you resign from the labour party or if you change colours again and profess your socialist beliefs to keep your snout in the seemingly bottomless pit of benefits that the current administration denies ordinary people.

I have never voted for an individual. I vote according to the party they belong to and that party’s political, economic and social allegiance. These last 11 years have not given me that option, so I have voted according to my conscience, often meaning I have voted according to the beliefs of an individual. Often an independent. Often the lesser of several evils. If the labour party returned to its roots and I believed it to be genuine in its return, I would once again vote for them. However, if by some twist of fate Margaret Becket was our candidate, no matter what she professed to be her allegiance or belief, I certainly would use my vote elsewhere.

More Revelations HERE and HERE.

A Read for Satellite Users.

There is an interesting read HERE.
I have been reading this guy's free email for some years now. Anybody who has satellite television, or any other electronic equipment should read this. Makes you wonder. Thank heaven we have people like this to put us in the picture.

Change

The buzzword of this current politics is 'CHANGE.'

Candidates toss it around without saying what they want to change to.

Years ago, there was an old drill sergeant who inspected his troops and told the corporal that they smelled bad. The sergeant suggested that they change their underwear.

The corporal responded, 'Yes, sir. I'll see to it immediately.' He went into the barracks and said, 'The sergeant thinks you lot smell bad, and he wants you to change your underwear. Cameron, you change with Howard, Brown, you change with Blair, Clegg, you change with Menzies....' 'Change, now get on with it'

A candidate may promise change in Parliament but the stink remains.

(With thanks to Lockergnome Political Geeks- humor for the idea)

MP decides not to quit government

A junior member of the government who was thought to have quit has I now said she is not going to leave - following a conversation with Gordon Brown.
Treasury ministerial aide Angela Smith had told colleagues she was resigning over the abolition of the 10p income tax rate. But Ms Smith later said this was not the case, although she acknowledged she had "concerns" over the policy.

Sounds suspiciously like John Prescott's meeting with Tony Blair over Clause IV, doesn't it?

Elections 2008

Socialism was popular in the 1960’s and 1970’s. It now seems to be taboo. Our ‘all for one, and one for oneself’ society popularised by Margaret Thatcher’s monetarist regime of the 1980’s saw the death knell of community. The end of social cohesion. The beginning of anarchy. In the 19^th century, anarchy was the antichrist of the ruling class. Anarchists were the demons sent to destroy society. Now I argue that 19^th century politicians and thinkers were a damn site more right wing than Thatcher and her followers. Yet she managed, towards the end of the 20^th century to destroy socialism, to instigate the destruction of the engineering power of our country and to see Britain become the lackey of American politics. And our so called Labour party seems intent on continuing this decline of the rights of the British people.

I ask, what has this ‘Labour’ government done for the every day working man? Despite their cries of discontent when VAT was put on gas and electricity by the ‘great’ lady, has this administration removed it? Has this administration redistributed the wealth this country of ours through fairer taxation? Have we seen any attempt at re-establishing the right of a working man to be content, affluent and safe in his own home?

What we have seen is greater tax on fuel, lower taxes for the rich at the expense of the poor and ordinary people in fear of the streets and in some cases in their own homes. Next month is your chance to say you are not happy with the current trend. You can go to the ballot box and make your feeling known. Vote for anybody BUT the main parties. Don’t waste your vote. Show them that you will vote. But on your terms, not theirs.

Cash is evil!

A judge decides businesses are entitled to charge cash paying customers more for the same service.

Does anybody remember the time when such people were welcome, nay, encouraged? I can’t help but think that the financial institutions that profit from debt and credit are behind this. Once they have us in the loop, were there for life. I intend to die owing thousands!

Politics Today

After an 18 month trial, permission for television broadcasts of Commons' proceedings was finally granted in 1990. I was marginally against this. Why? Democrats (in the purely British sense of the word) might well believe it would give the proceedings transparency. I was afraid that the men (and women) in the flash suits would have ‘the edge’. While I do not wish to infer that the voting population of Britain are not capable of making objective judgements, it seemed to me that we are a nation of ‘cap doffers’. With the best will in the world, we, the British have a tendency to trust the man in the suit, the one who is well presented. We do not look beyond the image. The politics of the last 30 years and more should show us that being well dressed does not mean the individual is worthy of our trust. Many of these well dressed men and women have let us down.

I make the point of John Profumo. Well Dressed, gentleman? Turned out to be untrustworthy and a liar.

Michael Foot who, in the 1970’s placed a wreath to the fallen from two World Wars on Armistice Day at the Cenotaph, wearing a ‘donkey jacket’ gave up leadership of the Labour Party because of the outcry, instituted by the right wing press and their Tory overlords. I shan’t quote the obvious- that most of the men who died to protect our freedom would have been similarly garbed. (Yes, I quoted it. I’m a liar, too.) I’ll just say we gave up a man who might have brought about some real changes. A man, who despite the donkey jacket, was a genuine and trustworthy individual. I was a member of the Labour Party back then. He would have made a great Prime Minister. When I say that, I mean in the vein of Benjamin Disraeli, Lloyd George and even, perhaps, Sir Winston Churchill. We really lost an opportunity for Britain to be ‘Great’ again.

I’ll end by saying that was the beginning of the end of the Labour Party in once Great Britain. We saw the beginning of career politicians. When the job became more important than the care of the people. When the expense account became more important than the job. When looking good meant more than being a good politician.

I rest my case.

One State, One Party?

I have just been listening to BBC’s news24. I heard a reporter discussing the China/Tibet situation. He described China, correctly, as a ‘one party state’. Well, I’d like somebody to explain to me where in the world today there is any state that is not ‘one party’. Take Britain today. We have a conservative, Labour and Liberal party. We can vote for either one by electing our local candidate. He or she may well attract the most votes from his or her area. But, it is likely that a party of a different political persuasion might well be the governing administration. Is that democracy? It could be argued that it is. I would argue differently. They all believe that giving rich businessmen tax breaks and financial loopholes to the detriment of the poor worker will bring rewards for us all. Well, that’s been happening since the industrial revolution. And our society is still financially and politically biased to the rich land and factory owners. We have a Conservative right wing capitalist party. We have a ‘Labour’ right wing capitalist party. We have a Liberal right wing capitalist party. Where, I ask you, in this ‘democratic’ country is a left wing socialist party that has a real possibility of being elected?

I know there will be those who will say I could start my own. But, to be honest, I haven’t the means, education or possibility in this ‘democracy’ to do so. I am not represented by anybody. The few socialist MP’s I might vote for do not represent my constituency, and so I cannot use my ‘free’ vote to see representatives of my opinion elected. So I have become one of the many who do not vote and are considered unworthy of consideration because we ‘cannot be bothered’. Well, I can be bothered. When there is somebody worthy, in my opinion, of my vote.

I think, as do many, it is time to re-assess our system to allow my vote to be used where I feel it to be most effective. Not limited to my geographical location. For me to be able to vote for a person or party, irrespective of where I live. If I choose to vote for a person I would like to see in Parliament to reflect my views I should be able to do so. A member of this venerable institution should be elected according to the wishes of the majority of the country, not his or her constituency. That would truly reflect the wishes of the majority, which I always understood democracy was all about. (‘What’ says the wealthy capitalist? ‘A real democracy? Where the workers have enforceable rights? Where I have to pay a fair wage? Not while I hold the reigns of power!’)

This leads me to another anomaly in our so-called democratic society. Why do we still have 26 Bishops automatically given seats and the Archbishops of Canterbury and York on retirement automatically givens seats in ‘the other place’? In our and most other modern democracies the state and church are supposed to be separate. Then why do we still allow these people a place in the House of Lords purely on the basis that they are or were high ranking members of the clergy? But we have yet another anomaly. The Parliament Act, which asserts the supremacy of the House of Commons by limiting the legislation-blocking powers of the House of Lords. Under the provisions of the Act, the Lords lost the power

(a) To delay certified money bills for more than one month,

and

(b) To exercise an absolute veto over other public bills.

If a public bill (other than a money bill or a bill extending the maximum duration of a parliament) was passed by the Commons in three successive sessions, with at least two years between the first Commons second reading and the Commons third reading in the third session, it could be presented for Royal Assent by the Commons.

So, the Lords is both undemocratic and a waste of tax payers money since they have no real power. Their ‘veto’ can be overruled by the commons.

So, let’s do away with them once and for all. Replace them, if you must with an elected body. But not with a group of people, failed politicians, churchmen, Lord ‘My-Dad-was-one-so-I-have-a-right’ etc and are there by virtue of their previous position.

Then there is ‘it could be presented for Royal Assent by the Commons. ‘

In other words, no Act of Parliament can become law unless the monarch signs it. So, irrespective of our 18thC revolution, when Charles the 1^st was executed in the name of the people and his son was given leave to return and rule only by the right of the people expressed through parliament, the monarchy still retains the unassailable right to pass laws. Look at the 1974 election, when Harold Wilson won by the rules of the day, but our reverend monarch, Elizabeth the second offered the role of government to Edward Heath. Although Harold Wilson’s Labour our Party were elected, Edward Heath was offered, by the Queen to form Her government. The fact that he could not form a coalition with the then Liberal Party is irrelevant. The Parliament was offered to an unelected body by the sovereign. Had he (Ted Heath) chosen to take the role offered by the monarch, albeit with a minority government, under British law that would have been legal. It may not have worked, but was allowable under our constitution. (Unwritten, so possibly, nay, probably allowable.) And who would have defended this undemocratic situation? The British Army, who vow an oath to the Queen.

Democracy? I’ve yet to see one.

Tibet and the Chinese Aggression.

As you can probably see from most of my comments, I am a socialist. I verge on Communism, but prefer persuasion to force. I admit to sometimes wishing we could have a violent revolution, as it seems to be the only way we can institute a socialist régime when faced with the Capitalist misinformation that sounds so logical to so many people until it is examined in detail. So my following opinion on the subject of China’s disregard for the people and culture of Tibet stems not from a condemnation of the principles of socialism, but from the aggressive methods China chose to use to try to force their system of government on an independent people. (Capitalist America has done the same- Hawaii for one. Many Hawaiians, previously an independent island do not want Hawaii to be an American state.) A phrase often quoted is ‘the unacceptable face of capitalism’. I believe China has and is showing us the ‘unacceptable face of socialism’ (as did Josef Stalin in communist Russia).

Where is the USA? They are quick enough to send troops to ‘protect’ oil rich countries. This smacks of East Timor. (No, we haven’t all forgotten.) If the USA are, as is claimed, the world’s police (isn’t that the role of the United Nations?) why aren’t they as aggressive and pro-active in this circumstance as they are in the Middle East? Why haven’t they warned China off? Why did the world ignore China’s aggression and invasion of Tibet in October 1950? What’s the matter, George Bush? Hasn’t God spoken to you on this? The world is watching.

Show Your Dissent!

For those who feel that, as I do we have no alternative political party to vote for. For those who believe we have no effective opposition. And for those who don't trust any political candidate. If you have such leanings, but would like to register your non-vote, and have a wish and willingness to vote may I suggest that at each election you go to the polling station and put a question mark against each of the candidates?
This way, no candidate will be credited with your vote. The voting paper will be rejected. If there are millions of such papers, it may, probably will be noticed. (I have been a scrutineer at a count. I believe they would, eventually be noticed.) We may become a non-affiliated political force to be reckoned with.

I end every email I send with ‘WANT TO VOTE BUT HAVE NO ACCEPTABLE CANDIDATE? PUT A '?' IN EACH BOX. SHOW THE ESTABLISHMENT WE EXIST.I also link it to this post. Maybe you could do the same. Maybe we can make a difference.

NO IFS. NO BUTS.

Peter Hain MP for Neath- Work and Pensions Secretary.

Your words. Your policy. Our fault.
I rest my case.

Brown Praises New Deal

PM Gordon Brown has praised the New Deal for unemployed. Maybe he can tell me why, at 50 years old, after raising two children single handed (and I mean just that- no help from social services or any other organisation) employers are turning me down because of my age and time out of full time work. (I have worked part time for most of those years.) Perhaps he can explain why, after coming off income support and on to job seekers allowance, I took the advice of the job-centre and went to Sunrise Training (Learn Direct) to do a refresher course in adult numeracy and literacy (even though I have GCE 'O' levels in these subjects-amongst others) because they said I would be funded by them for a fork-lift drivers course, which would open employment possibilities only to be told on successful completion of these courses that I couldn't be funded because I had passed the Level two exams too easily. You know what he can do with his 'New Deal'.